Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1] | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | Date | Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:53:39 +0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:36 +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > Hi Evgeniy, > > I forgot to put you in the CC of the email so I'm forwarding a post > about the connector sent on lkml.
Ok, I'm in.
> Best regards, > Guillaume
> email message attachment, "Forwarded message - Re: connector is > missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1" > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:36 +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > > Guillaume Thouvenin <guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it > > > seems that you removed the connector? > > > > Greg dropped it for some reason. I think that's best because it needed a > > significant amount of rework. I'd like to see it resubitted in totality so > > we can take another look at it.
Hmm, what exactly do you think _must_ be changed? Most of your comments are addressed in 4 patches I sent to you and Greg. Others [mostly atomic allocation] are API extensions and will be added. There also not included flush on callback removal.
> > It's a new piece of core kernel infrastructure and the barriers for that > > are necessarily high. > > > > > Will you include it again in futur > > > release? At the same time, will you include the fork connector? > > > > I could put the fork connector into -mm, but would like to be convinced > > that it's acceptable to and useful for all system accounting requirements, > > not just the one project. That means code, please.
SuperIO and kobject_uevent are also dropped as far as I can see.
Acrypto is being reviewed but it also depends on it, although it takes to much time, probably will be dropped too.
Proper w1 notification also requires connector.
-- Evgeniy Polyakov
Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |